Bug: Not GPL. :-) · Issue #834 · uutils/coreutils
github.com
Hi, I love this project, but infrastructural software really should be under the GPL. It's very important that distributed software can be fixed by the end user, which the MIT licenses & fr...

cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/119645

The amount of libertarian ideology present in FOSS is shocking

Yeah, I can’t believe the shit liberals say (hehe) sometimes…

  • princesscelestia@lemmygrad.ml
    4·
    3 years ago

    The AGPL is the best free software license we have access to currently that has been legaly tried and tested. You can not overly trust on copyright ones, even derivative ones of the AGPL because any modifications for it need to meet a long line of legal checkboxes in the west for them to mean fucking anything. If you can show me a free software license that is copyfarleft and has been backed up by a lawyer as being properly written then I will will consider supporting it. Writing licenses or modifying them is a very tricky game and its something not to go around fucking about with without some sort of legal counsel.

    If you have the money to draft some new fancy license with a lawyer? Go for it. No? Use the fucking AGPL.

    • holdengreen@lemmygrad.ml
      2·
      3 years ago

      That was the impression/counseling I got. And I was told you can make small addons/mods to the AGPL…

      How can we learn more about this stuff?

      • princesscelestia@lemmygrad.ml
        2·
        3 years ago

        Uh you can 100% Legally modify the AGPL. The issue is not on whether if you can or can not, rather companies will find every loophole possible in your bullshit to try to exploit it, which is why I am saying to be weary on making modifications.

        What exactly these limits are become a bit more difficult. The US govt has a 500 page book on all of the ins and outs of copyright regulation if you were really dedicated. here

        Copyright law is also a constantly changing field with court decisions changing the grounds quite often for example here.

        Software licenses are legal documents, and not something to be taken lightly. My point is that for modifications and for drafting your own licenses it is very important to consult people are qualified on such things because I have no fucking clue what exact bounds there are. I am not a lawyer.

        It is just a risky move imo.

        P.S. I found something about the use of these kinds of licenses, but little about their legal viability I think.